Favourite Prime Minister (2 Viewers)

[waterfowl]

If Bob Brown becomes PM I'm leaving the country.

 

[fashionista]

i like good ol goughy and pauli was rather good too


dad who was the first prime minister of australia??
err.....ask your mother
edmund barton edmund barton edmund barton edmund barton edmund barton edmund barton


anyone remember that ad?

 

[frog12986]

Sir Robert Gordon Menzies follwed by John Howard...
Anyone that remotely believes either Gough Whiltam or Paul Keating were commendable PM's ...should merely take a look at history and the dismissal of both respective leaders... and as for Bob Brown...he will never get within a hair of PM so I dont think consideration is necessary...

The problem is that this site is composed of primarily left wing students, who are taught the agenda of academics and reseachers...Jealousy and resentment for the upper classes have never been more prosperous...

Heres a hint... if you want to achieve and penetrate the walls of the the middle to upper class.... get off your ass! The belief that everything should come for free is idealistic and douses the flames of initiative.. Then we're left witha society based around the principles of the housing commmision communities... I could go no for days but honestly I dont want to waste my time nor the strain of my fingers...

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Gough Whitlam had bold ideas, I mean frog... how can u argue against "FREE UNIVERSITY FOR EVERYONE!" ?
The only problem is he did it all... way too fast, and with a lack of management. Basically, he didn't govern properly. Hawke did implement some of his fantasies a little better..

Bob Brown LOL!

 

[Vahl]

Heres a hint... if you want to achieve and penetrate the walls of the the middle to upper class.... get off your ass! The belief that everything should come for free is idealistic and douses the flames of initiative.. Then we're left witha society based around the principles of the housing commmision communities... I could go no for days but honestly I dont want to waste my time nor the strain of my fingers...

I am far left wing, and I do not believe that everything should come for free. In fact, I believe the opposite. ie that all people should have equality of oppourtunity and greater equality of outcomes so that they can achieve if they so desire.

It is ironic that you suggest that if people wish to enter the 'upper classes' they need to 'get off [their arses]' and not expect things to come automatically to them. As it currently stands, the 'upper classes' get far more given to them for free than do other demographics in our society. A child from a wealthy family has far more chance for a 'sucessful life' than does a child from a poor family. Their marks will be unfairly boosted by the power of their parents dollar enabling them to attend private schools and have outside private tuition.

With their marks already boosted, these wealthy students will again have their functional marks improved if they pay full fees for uni. They will start life at an qualifications advantage to those with similar ability but poorer parents. In addition they will usually have no HECS debt to further lower there chances of 'success'. In any case they will have a headstart.

This is clearly unfair and shows that it in fact someone from a wealthy family can 'sit on their arse' for more time than someone less lucky and achieve a similar or greater result.

We are more likely to end up with a society based on 'housing commission communities' from the current system than if we pursue a more left wing agenda. As it stands there is in fact little incentive for someone from a poor background to even attempt to enter the 'upper classes'. If you start of life with an academic and also financial disadvantage(HECS etc) you are less likely to be capable of upward mobility, especially in a city such as Sydney where house prices etc are so high that most young people already burdened by debt need to take on further debt to rent a house close to work etc.

If people are given a fair chance from the beginning, ie a families wealth should have the minimal amount of impact on the educational oppourtunities of a child, then people will recognise that there is a level playing field and as such there are less obstacles to 'success', and therefore will have higher motivation to 'succeed'.
I think that this in itself is wrong in any case, and that working as a team is more desirable and rewarding.

.................................


It provides some insight into your mind that you assume that someone is poor simply because they are left wing. Being left wing does not mean that I am opposed to wealth, reward for effort or the benefits of globalisation, but it does mean that I am distressed by the costs of these activities on society, on individuals and on the environment. The wonders of the modern world can be achieved with out damaging or hurting anyone or anything. It is the pain to so many people, animals and plants that these things have caused that I want to see an end to.

Also interesting is that you imply that you are 'upper class' which is interesting for someone who is studying to become a policeman. As pay disputes etc come out, you will doubtlessly realise both the importance of the unions and how unjust the inequality in our world is. Whilst policeman earn more than they're worth compared to other government service providers(teachers, nurses etc), if you do not have enough money to properly house a (potential) family, or to provide to meet many of your childrens basic needs and wants, you too would be be enraged to see how the 'upper classes' waste money, such as an individual spending millions of dollars on ridiculously expensive cars. When it hits you that they had this money to spend on luxuries when just a small fraction would satisfy your families needs ie some have gross excess to waste whilst you have barely enough to provide for your families needs in the modern world, you too will understand the injustice that the left opposes. Furthermore, when it also occurs to you that this excess wealth has not been produced by the selfish individual themselves but by the labour of others, potentially you, you will be angered and feel robbed.

There is no justification for injustice, whilst in our present economic system it is necessary for high economic growth, this reflects the corrupt nature of neoclassical economics rather than an ultimate reality. We now have the technology and knowledge that a centrally planned economic system is viable and attractive. Higher growth could be achieved through more efficient use of resources, ie, whilst the market system may be more efficient in absolute terms, it is very wasteful(average 50% of cost of goods in the marketing). Thus a centrally planned system is more attractive. There can be no jusification for injustice.

The notion of a class based society is at absolute opposition to my central values, and as such I can neither recognise or desire to be a member of a 'higher class', whom I deem to be tainted and unworthy.

.........................

 

[Vahl]

Gough Whitlam had bold ideas, I mean frog... how can u argue against "FREE UNIVERSITY FOR EVERYONE!" ?
The only problem is he did it all... way too fast, and with a lack of management. Basically, he didn't govern properly. Hawke did implement some of his fantasies a little better..

Bob Brown LOL!

Gough is a hero because he held his principles above the arguments of economists and the right wing. He did the right thing. Even had he known that there would be many difficulties financially he would still have been right to proceed as he pushed ahead for progress regardless of opposition that came from the potential damage to the core of our society. The corrupt core, the rights of the individual should always come before the rights of the economy, and it was an economic argument rather than an absolute argument that was threatening Goughs agenda. Yet another aspect of the power controlled by the wealthy.

Bob Brown and the Greens are more attractive than our current PM and government because Howard and Co have been proven to have lied on numerous occassions and as such are untrustworthy. At the very least, Greens policy is focused on the good of everyone collectively and as individuals wheras Liberal policy focuses on providing benefits for some and denying equal treatment(economically and in terms of social equality) to other groups in society.

 

[fashionista]

If Bob Brown becomes PM I'm leaving the country.

If Bob Brown became PM i would piss myself laughing for eternity....cuz then he's have to be friends with geroge bush...and he's already made an ass of himself there

 

[Korn]

i like good ol goughy and pauli was rather good too


dad who was the first prime minister of australia??
err.....ask your mother
edmund barton edmund barton edmund barton edmund barton edmund barton edmund barton


anyone remember that ad?

Didnt we all have to learn about Edmund Barton b4 that ad came out in primary

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Vahl, labor policy is closer to the liberals than the greens.
If you believe that the greens are a better alternative than the current government, then you must believe that the greens are a better alternative than labor.
If so, why does it appear that you are a staunch labor supporter?

 

[Korn]

Vahl, labor policy is closer to the liberals than the greens.
If you believe that the greens are a better alternative than the current government, then you must believe that the greens are a better alternative than labor.
If so, why does it appear that you are a staunch labor supporter?

He is probably playing some sterotype that anyone is better then the current govt, that way it averts actually having to think

 

[Not-That-Bright]

He is probably playing some sterotype that anyone is better then the current govt, that way it averts actually having to think

Yea, Modern Societies are fundamentally about order: about rationality and rationalization, creating order out of chaos. The assumption is that creating more rationality is conducive to creating more order, and that the more ordered a society is, the better it will function. Because modernity is about the pursuit of ever-increasing levels of order, modern societies constantly are on guard against anything and everything labeled as "disorder," which might disrupt order. Thus modern societies rely on continually establishing a binary opposition between "order" and "disorder," so that they can assert the superiority of "order." But to do this, they have to have things that represent "disorder" modern societies thus continually have to create/construct "disorder." In western culture, this disorder becomes "the other"--defined in relation to other binary oppositions. Thus anything non-white, non-male, non-heterosexual, non-hygienic, non-rational, (etc.) becomes part of "disorder," and has to be eliminated from the ordered, rational modern society.

His "the other" that his lefty friends have created is the Liberal party. I wish people would stop being constrained by their modernist views and start thinking like post-modernists.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

The left faction in the ALP would be closer to the Greens than the Liberal party.

Julia gillard - Albanese - Carmen Lawence

I don't care about factions, I care about the actual policies which are brought forward.

 

[Korn]

The left faction in the ALP would be closer to the Greens than the Liberal party.

Julia gillard - Albanese - Carmen Lawence

Yeah, what actual influence on policy do small factions have?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

Yes... but I think you should vote for a party based on policy, not based on what the members "say" they stand for.

I think it's a smarter Idea (say if you're a greenie) to switch over to Labor, so that there's more of a possibility of you making some REAL policy changes ( i believe someone like that midnight oil guy, who dad would kill me that i forgot his name... would be suited more to the greens, but has realised he can make REAL change by bringing his thoughts to a major party).

 

[Korn]

The liberal party also has 'factions'

To assume that everyone in the party is positioned exactly at the same place on the scale is stupidity.

Labor party policy on some matters is close to the Greens. On others it is far away.

Liberal party has very little in common with the Greens.

The ALP is quite different to the Liberal party.

He didnt say that he doesnt care about factions specifically in non-liberal parties, i would think he meant all factions

 

[Not-That-Bright]

The ALP is different to the Liberal party yes, but the ALP is closer to the Liberal party than the Greens. No matter how many Julia Gillards they take under their wing, untill there is some real policy change, they are closer to the liberals.
I know it's hard for you to take since you (and Vahl3) have obviously formed in your head that the Liberal party is 'evil'.

 

[Not-That-Bright]

No I have no problem with the AAT, I didn't know they wanted to abolish it...
All I've heard is that they were a bit cut over the decision to allow the liberals for forests to keep their name.

Even if i disagree with some policy, I think you have to decide which party has the policies which align best with your beliefs?

 

[Korn]

The liberal party, in so many ways, is evil.

Just by looking at the measures it has adopted to limit HREOC (which could go) and review of executive decisions is enough to make your shivver... just a little bit. Not to mention our foreign policy more from multilateralism to bil lateralism and our government failing to sign the EU trade agreement because it had a high level of human rights protection as a prereq to singing.

What does singing have to do with signing a declaration

Probably the best thing the liberal government has done it's term in office is gun laws.

Ild have to disagree, thats one of the worst things the Howard govt has done, it was right to take away military style rifles away, but they have also taken away 9mm and .40 and .45 calibre handguns away from pistol shooters. I refer to the sport of pistol shooting not just a random shooting a pistol

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I must say I disagree with alot of liberal social stances..
I believe in a free open society, and a free open market.

It is sad tho that so many Labor supporters can't sight anything they like about the Liberals (sad for the liberals, I mean, are they such a dividing force?) I mean... I can sight alot of things about the Hawke government I liked, he opened us up, we were so protectionist and stupid before his reforms...

 

[Korn]

typo signing*

the biggest gripes I have with the Liberal government is it's total disrespect for liberal democracy. Its total push towards removal democratic checks on power. It's push to limit federalism and the power of the states. It's TOTAL disregard for rights and welfare. It's ability to totally ignore minorities (governments by duty have to do there best to lesgislate for EVERYONE). It's disgusting method of processing refurgees (yeah 6 years!).

Oh and also arguing before the High Court that it should be able to use the races power in the Constitution to legislate to take away the rights of particular races - this is perhaps one of the most distasteful ventures of the Howard government.

U know what gets on my nerve, when Australia was under international criticism in the media, the US was like Australia treats illegal immigrants really bad, but when i was in the States in 1994, the bus tour lady, told us they shoot illegal immigrants trying to cross the border in California, what hypocrits